key: cord-0757439-bte2ck1o
authors: Kumar, Neeraj; Kumar, Abhyuday; Kumar, Ajeet; Pattanayak, Arunima; Singh, Kunal; Singh, Prabhat K.
title: NUTRIC score as a predictor of outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients: A retrospective observational study
date: 2021-10-08
journal: Indian J Anaesth
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_474_21
sha: f6cbbb64db4327eb1ff52adb5b6d75eb066bf8b2
doc_id: 757439
cord_uid: bte2ck1o

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Nutrition Risk in Critically ill (NUTRIC) score is an appropriate nutritional assessment tool in mechanically ventilated patients. We retrospectively observed the applicability of the NUTRIC score for predicting outcomes in coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. METHODS: All adult COVID-19 ARDS patients admitted to the intensive care unit and requiring various forms of oxygen therapy were included in the study. The demographic characteristics and clinical information about the patients were obtained from the hospital's medical records department. The nutritional risk for each patient was assessed using the NUTRIC score at 72 hours of ICU admission. The discriminating power and ability of NUTRIC score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II to predict the 28-day mortality and need for mechanical ventilation (MV) was calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves and area under this curve. RESULTS: A total of 80 COVID-19 ARDS patients fitted into the inclusion criteria. Among non-survivors, the median Glasgow Coma Score, APACHE II score, NUTRIC score and SOFA score were 10, 16, 6 and 4, respectively. The cut-off values for NUTRIC score, SOFA, and APACHE II to predict 28-day mortality and need for MV was obtained as 3.5, 3.5 and 11.5, respectively. These cut-off values of NUTRIC score, SOFA score, and APACHE II have a sensitivity of 62%, 72.5% and 75.5%, respectively, and specificity of 95%, 72% and 83% for predicting mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Most COVID-19 ARDS patients requiring MV in the ICU are at nutritional risk, and a high NUTRIC score is associated with higher mortality.

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID- 19) pandemic has been caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as named by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Today, the whole world is crippled with its second wave, and the number of confirmed cases has dramatically increased nearly to 34 million, with 0.44 million deaths in India. [1] Severe COVID-19 presents with an inflammatory condition characterised by the involvement of proinflammatory cytokines. [2] The nutritional assessment and the early nutritional care management of COVID-19 patients must be integrated into the overall therapeutic strategy. The patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) commonly suffer from malnutrition as these patients are underfed, and this adversely affects the ICU outcomes. [3] Nutritional therapy plays one of the most critical roles in reducing mortality in the ICU, especially in COVID-19 patients; so the nutritional status of these patients must be evaluated before administering general treatment. Nutritional risk is defined as the risk of adverse effects on clinical outcomes based on various dietary factors. [4] All high-nutritional risk patients must be evaluated for nutritional status during their initial ICU stay, as higher risk is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. The nutrition risk screening (NRS-2002) is a simple, easy, efficient and highly sensitive tool accepted by health practitioners worldwide. [5] In general, patients with an NRS-2002 score <3 are not at nutritional risk; so nutritional support is not required during the first week of hospitalisation. Hence, periodic NRS-2002 screening of all COVID-19 patients is needed once every three-five days. Patients with a score of >3 require immediate nutritional intervention. The Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (NUTRIC) score, another recommended screening tool, was developed to be explicitly used for ICU patients. [6] To this date, very little is known about the nutritional risks for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we conducted a study to assess the NUTRIC score as a predictor of outcome in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. The primary outcome was to observe the cut-off values for NUTRIC, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE) II scores to predict 28-day mortality. The secondary outcome was to observe the cut-off values of these scores for the need for mechanical ventilation.

This retrospective single-centre observational study was conducted in the COVID-19 ICUs of our Institute. The study population was COVID-19 ARDS patients admitted to the ICUs between October 1 st and December 31 st , 2020. Patients who were reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive and fulfilled the criteria of ARDS were included in the study. [7] Patients were managed according to the COVID-19 clinical management guidelines released by the Director-General of Health services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India. [8] Our nutrition management plans were determined independently by the bedside ICU team. Exclusion criteria were: age below 18 years, pregnant female, length of ICU stay less than 24 hours and patient with insufficient medical information. The patients' demographic characteristics and clinical information were obtained from the hospital's medical records department.

Institutional ethical committee approval was taken for collecting data. All relevant data were filled in using standardised round book collection forms. The following data were retrieved: demographics; clinical and laboratory data; history; medical complications; main treatments; nutritional support pattern; details of oxygen therapy; ventilatory support and outcome. We defined patients alive after 28 days post ICU admission as survivors and patients who died within 28 days as non-survivors. Mechanical ventilation (MV) need was defined as the need for either non-invasive ventilation or invasive ventilation during ICU stay. We evaluated the NUTRIC score of each patient using the six variables-Age, APACHE II score, SOFA score, number of co-morbidities, days in hospital prior to admission to the ICU and values of interleukin-6 (IL-6) within 24 hours of admission to the ICU. [9, 10] The NUTRIC scores were entered in a sheet [ Table 1 ]. [6] The nutritional risk for each patient was assessed at 72 hours after ICU admission using the NUTRIC score. The calculation of NUTRIC score of 1-10, is based on those six variables. A score of >5 indicates that the patient has a high nutritional risk with 20% mortality at 28 days. [6] Data including continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and categorical variables were expressed as a percentage. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to find the sensitivity and specificity on comparison of outcome and NUTRIC score. In all the above statistical tools, P = 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We evaluated the prediction of NUTRIC scores for the 28-day outcome and need for MV by calculating the area under the ROC curve, and the best NUTRIC score cut-off for the 28-day outcome and need for MV was obtained. The collected data were analysed with International Business Machines Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM, SPSS) (IBM Corp., Statistics for Windows, version 24.0, Armonk, NY). The calculation of sample size would not be appropriate for a retrospective observational study of 80 subjects., We intended to calculate the predicted mortality based on NUTRIC Score, and thus we considered the "mortality to survival ratios" for assessing the power of the study. We observed the AUC of 0.802 for NUTRIC score assessment for unfavourable outcomes, which is significant from the null hypothesis value 0.5. The observed ratio is 0.78 for survivors and non-survivors in the current study. For α-level of 0.05, the calculated power of the study appears to be nearly 99.9%.

A total of 96 COVID-19 ARDS patients were admitted to the ICU, out of which 80 patients met our inclusion criteria [ Figure 1 ]. Out of 80 patients, there were 35 patients in the survivors group and 45 patients in the non-survivors group. The age in years [mean ± standard deviation(SD)] of survivors and non-survivors was 55.82 ± 13.92 and 61.69 ± 13.5. A total of 47.5% of patients were older than 60 years. The co-morbidities like hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma, cerebrovascular accidents, chronic kidney disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hypothyroidism were frequently seen, and the most common of these were hypertension (42.5%) and diabetes mellitus (38.7%). Among survivors, the median Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score, APACHE II score, NUTRIC score and SOFA score were 15, 8, 2 and 2, respectively. Among non-survivors, the median GCS score, APACHE II score, NUTRIC score and SOFA score were 10, 16, 6 and 4, respectively. During the ICU stay, COVID-19 ARDS patients developed several complications that included acute kidney injury in two (3.8%), shock in twelve (15%), acute liver disease in one (1.2%) and secondary infection in six (7.5%) patients.

Patients received oxygen therapy in different forms according to their clinical condition in due course of treatment in the ICU. The requirement of MV among survivors and non-survivors was 28.5% and 55.5%, respectively. A total of 15 patients (33.3%) out of 45 required vasopressors for treatment among the non-survivors group of patients. The characteristics of the study participants among survivors and non-survivors are shown in Table 2 . A NUTRIC score with a value of >5 points is defined as a high score, and ≤5 points is taken as a low score. [6] Based on NUTRIC scores at ICU admission, a high nutritional risk (>5 points) was observed in 15% of COVID-19 ARDS patients in the current study. A low nutritional risk (≤5 points) was observed in 85%. The high nutritional risk group exhibited significantly greater incidences of shock, acute kidney injuries, secondary infection, and use of vasopressors. The 28-day mortality rate in 80 patients of COVID-19 ARDS was found to be 56.25%. Patients with high NUTRIC scores between 6 and 10 have a higher 28-day mortality risk than those with NUTRIC score between 0 and 5. The sensitivity and specificity of a high NUTRIC score (>5) to predict the mortality was 26.6% and 100%, respectively, in our subset of COVID-19 patients.

The ROC curves were plotted in the current study to find the discriminating power of the NUTRIC score in predicting 28-day mortality and the new cut-off value that would have better sensitivity as well. The discriminative powers of other scores like SOFA and APACHE II were also calculated. Sensitivity and 1-specificity were used to plot ROC curves. The area under this curve (AUC) represented the discriminative ability of the NUTRIC-score, SOFA and APACHE II Figure 2b ] were obtained by analysing the ROC. The derived cut-off points for NUTRIC score, SOFA and APACHE II with sensitivity and specificity are shown in Table 3 . A total of 55.5% of patients with COVID-19 ARDS needed MV. The AUC of NUTRIC score, SOFA and APACHE II with their P value and 95% confidence interval (CI) to predict 28-day mortality and need for MV is shown in Table 4 .

Patients with high NUTRIC scores between 6 and 10 had a more increased need for MV than those with a NUTRIC score between 0 and 5. The NUTRIC score was 97.29% specific for detecting the need for MV, and it had a sensitivity of 23.25%.

The majority of the patients (70%) received enteral nutrition (EN), 7% of patients received total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and 14% of patients received EN plus PN. The remaining 9% did not receive any nutritional supplement due to some contraindications.

Many studies have demonstrated the importance of the NUTRIC score in the prediction of outcomes in critically ill patients. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] However, its validation in COVID-19 ARDS patients is lacking. This is the first study as per our knowledge, which assessed the NUTRIC score for a particular population, especially COVID-19 ARDS patients. Zhang et al. [11] found a mortality of 87% versus 49% in COVID-19 patients with high NUTRIC score. We found a mortality of 92.8% versus 38% in high NUTRIC score group whereas taking a cut-off of 3.5, Kalaiselvan et al. [12] reported 43% of mechanically ventilated patients as having a high nutritional risk (mNUTRIC score >5 points). Mendes et al. [16] reported that 49% of ICU patients were at high nutritional risk based on their Similarly, the NUTRIC scoring system includes the SOFA score, which determines organ dysfunction levels and mortality risk in ICU patients. [17] Canadian researchers first used the NUTRIC scoring system in the ICU. [6] For assessment of nutritional status in critically ill patients, both NRS 2002 and NUTRIC Scores were recommended by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) in the year 2016. [18] The NUTRIC score of patients at the time of ICU admission has been associated with MV, clinical complications, hospitalisation time and death. [19] The NUTRIC score has been predicted to be a risk factor associated with survival time in ICUs. [20] In the current study, we found that patients with high NUTRIC scores between 6 and 10 had a higher 28-day mortality risk and a higher need for MV as compared to NUTRIC scores between 0 and 5. Our data suggested that the NUTRIC score may be an appropriate tool for nutritional risk assessment and prognosis prediction for COVID-19 ARDS patients. Moreover, on analysing the ROC, the cut-off values for NUTRIC score, SOFA and APACHE II to predict 28-day mortality were 3.5, 3.5 and 11.5 with specificity as 95%, 72% and 83%, respectively. Similarly, the cut-off values for NUTRIC score, SOFA and APACHE II to predict the need for mechanical ventilation were 3.5, 3.5 and 11.5 with specificity of 78.4%, 70.3% and 67.6%, respectively. In our study, the NUTRIC score (3.5) cut-off values to predict mortality and need for MV were much less than the previously acceptable cut-off value of 5. This shows that nutrition has a more significant role in COVID-19 patients as compared to non-COVID-19 patients, and utmost importance should be given to this. On analysing the AUC, the NUTRIC score was a fair marker for predicting mortality but poorly predicted the need for MV. The study by Kalaiselvan et al. [12] in critically ill patients concluded a mean NUTRIC score of 4.0, which was lesser than the original validation study by Heyland et al. [6] with a NUTRIC score of 4.7. During this pandemic, we need to develop new approaches for performing nutritional screening of patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Still with limited treatment options, COVID-19 appropriate behaviour and vaccination remain the mainstay of controlling the disease. [21] [22] [23] Our study has few limitations. Firstly, all enroled patients were from dedicated COVID-19 ICUs of a single centre, so there may be chances of selection bias as one of the confounding factors. Secondly, only a small sample size (80) of COVID-19 ARDS patients was included. Thirdly, we did not perform dynamic nutritional risk assessments and serum prealbumin levels, which may have affected our patient outcomes and results. Fourthly, it was a retrospective observational study. Nonetheless, extensive multicentric randomised controlled studies are needed to determine nutritional interventions that can further improve the outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients.

A NUTRIC score of >3.5 at ICU admission has a higher 28-day ICU mortality and is associated with a higher need for MV. This study signifies the importance of NUTRIC score for prognosticating COVID-19 patients and opens the path to future research on this topic.

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/ her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Nil.

Worldometers India coronavirus update

19: Consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression

Assessment of malnutrition and enteral feeding practices in the critically ill: A single-centre observational study

ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening

Essentials of nutritional support therapy in critically ill patients

Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: The development and initial validation of a novel risk assessment tool

ARDS Definition Task Force

Government of India. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Directorate General of Health Services. Guidelines on Clinical Management of COVID-19

Apache II: A severity of disease classification system

The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

The modified NUTRIC score can be used for nutritional risk assessment as well as prognosis prediction in critically ill COVID-19 patients

Use of nutrition risk in critically ill (NUTRIC) score to assess nutritional risk in mechanically ventilated patients: A prospective observational study

Modified nutrition risk in critically ill (mNUTRIC) score to assess nutritional risk in mechanically ventilated patients: A prospective observational study from the Pakistani population

Targeted energy intake is the important determinant of clinical outcomes in medical critically Ill patients with high nutrition risk

Nutritional assessment of critically ill patients: Validation of the modified NUTRIC score

Nutritional risk assessment and cultural validation of the modified NUTRIC score in critically ill patients-A multicenter prospective cohort study

Calculated decisions: Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score

Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

NUTRIC score use around the world: A systematic review

The diagnosis and NUTRIC score of critically ill patients in enteral nutrition are risk factors for the survival time in an intensive care unit?

COVID-19: A game of drugs, vaccines, hope and…death

Indian society of anaesthesiologists (ISA National) advisory and position statement regarding COVID-19

COVID operation theatre advisory and position statement of Indian society of anaesthesiologists (ISA National)

ISA FAMILY BENEVOLENT FUND" • ISA encourages members to join Family Benevolent Fund of Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists (ISA-FBF) to help our colleagues' and our own families when they face the testing moments of their life. • BECOME AN ISAFBF MEMBER, NOT FOR YOU, BUT TO HELP OUR COLLEAGUE'S FAMILIES BY DONATING Rs.300/-per year /death. • TO BECOME AN ISAFBF MEMBER KINDLY VISIT OUR WEBSITE isafbf.com or CONTACT YOUR CITY BRANCH/STATE/PRESIDENT/SECRETARY • Contact for Details & Application forms: Dr. Sugu Varghese

There are no conflicts of interest.